CIVIL CODE.
The consideration of the bill H. R. 367 was resumed.
Mr. BROWN--If Section 70 remains, it will defeat the constitutional protection, which provides that a person shall be put in jeopardy but once in regard to the same thing. He moved to amend so as to obviate that objection.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TRAYLOR, being satisfied this section ought not to be in the bill, moved to strike it out.
Mr. MENZIES thought the section as amended should remain, In justice to border Counties. It may operate as a hardship in individual cases, but that is better than that criminals should escape on account of the opinion of the Justice.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. COMSTOCK moved ineffectually to amend Section 71 so as to deprive cities of the right prosecute for assault and battery, or for being found in a state of intoxication.
On motion by Mr. VIEHE, Section 71 was amended so where a party is convicted under a State law that shall be a bar to prosecutions under any other law.
Mr. COFFEY--If the Legislature has power to enact such a law, there is no reason why it should not embrace violations of ordinancesof incorporated towns.
On motion by Mr. BELL, Section 71 was re- ferred to a Select Committee of three. page: 128[View Page 128] The PRESIDING OFFICER pro tem. [Mr. Langdon in the Chair] made said Committee to consist of Messrs. Bell, Menzies and Chapman.
The Committee's amendment to Section 79, to reduce the number of Grand Jurors to six, being read--
Mr. BROWN thought the Grand Jury ought to consist of twelve members. Six find more indictments than twelve, and it ought to be composed of a sufficient number to represent each and every part of the County, so as to guarantee a sure protection against an improper finding of criminal indictments. The Grand Jury was originally twenty-fonr [A voice--36] thirty-six, it is said. It is twenty-four in the Federal Courts.
Mr. COMSTOCK'S observation as to the practical working of the law reducing the number of Jurors, is that findings for violations have been just as satisfactory as when the Jury was composed of twelve. The law is as fairly investigated by a Grand Jury of six as by twelve. The law fixing the number at six has generally been satisfactory.
Mr. BELL, from motives of economy, would have to favor a reduction, though the operations of the law reducing the number have not been altogether satisfactory. On principle he favored twelve, but as a matter of economy, in Counties where there are Criminal Courts, he should vote for six, against his convictions.
Mr. MENZIES, in Committee, reserved the right to oppose this amendment in open Senate.
The Committee amendment striking out twelve and inserting six in lieu was concurred in by yeas, 31; nays, 5.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, Section 89 was amended by inserting Clause 10, disqualifying any person from serving on a Grand Jury who has sought the position.
Mr. WILSON moved to amend Section 98 so as to make the duty of witnesses before the Grand Jury to answer any question touching any charge then pending before the Grand Jury; so the witness shall not be compelled to swear to give testimony or answer any question that may be asked.
The amendment was rejected--yeas, 8; nays, 28.
Mr. URMSTON moved as a substitute for Section 93 that the Grand Jury shall weigh all the evidence presented to it.
Mr. COMSTOCK preferred the section to stand as it is.
The substitute was rejected.
Mr. BROWN would like to see Section 93 amended so the Grand Jury shall not hear evidence for the defendant. The Grand Jury has jurisdiction over the Jails of the County, and he moved to amend Section 101 so that it shall have free access to the public Prisons in term time. He opposed the clause in this section grantng the Grand Jury free access at all reasonable times to public records or to County Poor Houses, inasmuch as it has no power to act in the cases. He was opposed to enlarging the powers of the Grand Jury, making it an Investigating Committee--despoil it entirely if that is to be its especial functions.
Mr. WILSON insisted that by ocular demonstration the Grand Jury can ascertain facts which can not be obtained in any other way. It can do no harm if it does no good to allow the section to remain as it is.
The substituted was adopted with an amendment proposed by Mr. COMSTOCK, including County Poor Houses.
Mr. BROWN moved to amend Section 93 as indicated in the beginning of his last speech.
Mr. GARRIGUS thought it a strang thing that the Grand Jury should be allowed to assort testimony, and if a witness should attempt to say anything to do away with the charge, he should be stopped under this amendment. The Grand Jury is a bad enough institution anywhere, but to tie them down so the shall not hear any evidence for the defendant is simply shameful.
Mr. BROWN was as anxious as any one to throw safeguards around the citizen, but the safety of the great body of the public lies higher than the protection of the individual. It is a denial of all that has gone before to say a defendant's defense shall be heard in the Grand Jury room. Let it be said the defendant can send witnesses to the Grand Jury room and in nine tenths of the cases where trials and convictions ought to follow the party will be set loose to prey upon the people at large.
Mr. GARRIGUS insisted if the amendment prevails the section would contain contradictory terms. He would not make a trial Court of the Grand Jury; but he opposed the amendment.
Mr. MENZIES made an ineffectual motion to strike out the section, being willing to leave this matter to the Courts of the country.
The amendment was agreed to--yeas, 22; nays, 12.
The Senate adjourned till 9:30 to-morrow.
